What Is a Family and Why Does It Matter?

The following is a brief introduction to the topic:

Recent debates in family ethics 1 The source and scope of the parent-child relation have been the subject of considerable research to determine the rights and responsibilities between parents and their children. In these accounts, we are presented with different versions of who counts as a parent or the limits of parental power. In this literature, ‘family,’ whether implicitly or explicitly, is understood as a synonym for an institution where adults raise children. This paper examines the construction of “family” and its use in modern society. It then advocates a shift in family ethics by recognizing the family as a collection of social practices. This approach draws explicitly on concepts from family sociology to demonstrate how sociological thinking could contribute to discussions about how people should behave. This has significant benefits. It offers a more inclusive definition of the word’ family,’ one which is not artificially restricted. This allows relationships between adults and children, as well as those that are not parents, to be considered and seen positively. This framework relates the abstract concept of family to everyday expectations and behaviors and thus connects it with the way social actors use it. Since ‘family is a social construction, this is central. This framework explains why familial relationships are important in ethics and how they can create moral obligations. We show these must be kept from blood relations or previous choices. This presents ‘the Family’ as a static, defined institution with one purpose: raising children. This work highlighted critical moral issues, such as parental partiality limits. Brighouse and Swift 2014 What properties allow an adult to claim parental rights over a child? Gheaus 2018 ).

We suggest that family ethicists also address essential and practical normative questions, which require a new methodological approach and, therefore, redefining families. Our approach is based on the sociological concept of ‘family practices,’ which views families as dynamic and defined by their members’ activities rather than through blood or legal ties. It also recognizes that cultural contexts can confirm and change the meanings of the word family. In common with other prominent writers, Brighouse and Swift 2014 Our approach departs from biological conceptions. It also challenges the version of’ families by choice’ echoed in recent philosophical works, e.g., Chambers 2017; Cutas and Chan 2012. According to this theory, individual agency is at the center of family formation, and families are formed solely by subjective notions of belonging. They are following the definition of Morgan ( 1996 ( and, more recently, Finch ( 2007 The doing of the family is central. Families are places where a bundle of activities is performed through which relationships are reproduced, reinforced, or challenged.

Restriction of ‘Family

Theorists specializing in the family usually begin by focusing on stereotypical family relationships, often the parent-child duo. David Archard’s approach, which is typical in applied ethical thinking, limits definitions to “simple” cases rather than engaging with the complexity of modern practice. He writes that a ‘family’ is a multigenerational, usually stably cohabiting group whose adults have primary responsibility for their dependent children. Archard 2010, p. ). Archard acknowledges the complexity of contemporary family life but believes that this limited account is sufficient for philosophical analysis of questions about family. He gives little room to consider different definitions of family, as his main interest is exploring parental rights and responsibilities towards children. Brighouse and Swift ( 2014 The work of ‘Family Values’ is limited to discussing values that parenting children realize. It is important to remember that the desire to focus analytically on theoretically fascinating issues was the only reason for stating that parent-child relationships are the core element of ‘family value.’ This is not an ideological claim that ‘the family is for the project to bear and raise children’ (2014, p.48). Our paper can be read as a way of looking at families in order for us to address different theoretical questions about the rights and responsibilities of care. These are important but often ignored when we focus on the case of only parents and dependent children. The rights and responsibilities, for example, of “extended” families or adults who are intimately engaged in the care of their children but are not generally considered their parents. MacDonald et al. 2018; Powell 2018 ). It can therefore be read as an extension of previous debates about ‘family values,’ which more accurately reflect the reality of family relationships. Some definitions rely on a “common sense” understanding of empirical reality, which ignores structural variations and promotes an outdated portrayal of ‘normal families.’ We intervene here in a debate about how parents can claim a set of rights and responsibilities for a child. The causal theory of parenting is one competing account. Porter 2014; Austin 2007 Gestational accounts that locate parenting during pregnancy Gheaus 2018 Genetic approaches ( Velleman, 2005 ). These theories offer different accounts of what makes a person a good parent. However, they all agree that there is a clear distinction between parenthood and nonparenthood. Recent theories have acknowledged the many ways in which someone can be considered a parent. Bayne and Kolers ( 2003 ). This question can only be answered by placing parenting within a family’s practices. This approach has the benefit of removing the need to categorize adults as parents or nonparents in a binary manner. Instead, it focuses on families and the activities and orientations associated with parenting. Sparrman et al. 2016 Our more general point is that we should adopt a definition that recognizes that family is a collection of implicit understandings of expectations, practices, and status relationships. Social scientists have been occupied with these questions, and practical moral questions must also draw upon the best empirical research available to answer them well.

Institutions and Choice Against

It is useful to explore the socio-historical evolution of the term “family” (and, more recently, families) to make explicit those aspects of family that are most important for authors who work on family ethics or problems with definitions. There is a tendency for people to define the family in a static, institutional way. This means there is a class of insiders or outsiders, and the membership in those categories has remained relatively stable over time. Philosophers like Archard reflect the definition of the family that was dominant in ‘traditional approaches to family sociology,’ which were prevalent in the 1970s and 1980s. They were based on a functionalist approach that emphasized the roles of men and women in public and private lives. Parsons and Bales, 1955 ). Institutions must manage the gendered labor divisions, so the focus shifted to defining clearly what constitutes a “family” (amongst many other institutions). The social anthropologist developed a definition, Murdock ( 1949, p. 11 This definition has been discredited over the years because it focuses on heteronormative and blood-related assumptions. Murdock’s method was criticized for being too abstract, ahistorical, and historically inaccurate, as it did not reflect diversity in family arrangements and emphasized a male-centered, middle-class perspective. Its static, institutional nature makes it unsuitable for describing reality or guiding policy and political action. Recognizing the problems with Murdock and similar family definitions, sociologists tried to reflect more closely on ideas of closeness and relatedness, which were not bound by formalized legal or biological structures. Treas et al. 2014 () challenged the boundaries of parenthood and family. Archard, Brighouse, Swift, and others all acknowledge the limitations of a too-narrow conception of family. They argue that it is enough to use a simple description that covers the majority of circumstances and deals with the exceptions separately. It is suggested that the static, institutional model can be maintained by changing some of the parameters for who becomes a member. For example, a gay or single couple could be classified as parents. Brighouse and Swift, 2014, pp. 48-49 ). We believe, in line with the dominant sociological view, that this approach cannot capture all the close, caring relationships that actors consider family. Research on the way people in Britain who live apart from their partners describe and understand “family” has examined how they “draw and redraw boundaries of family belonging, involving emotionally subjective understandings and also referring to normative constructions about what a family should be as well as practical recognitions and lived family reality’.” Stoilova et al. 2017, p. 78 ). These shifts also led to the idea of a singular, clearly delineated ‘family,’ having less influence on public expectations and imaginations about family life. Giddens 1992 In sociology, ‘families by choice’ has emerged as an alternative way of thinking beyond institutional framing. Insights heavily influence this analysis in feminist theory and anthropology. Strathern 1992 The initial studies were based on how gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals construct ideas of kinship based on concepts of reciprocity and intimacy that do not depend on biological relatedness. Weeks et al. 2001 Instead, they drew upon the concept of “elective affinity” ( Beck-Gernsheim, 1998) As “People who are related by blood or not but feel like they belong together” and want to be defined as a family ( Weston, 1991 ). It had links with anthropological studies on how ‘families and personal lives’ can be organized, undermining modern’ Western house structures. Moreover, it had intellectual origins from gender studies that brought attention to ‘doing gender’ (e.g., West and Zimmerman 1987 Performativity (e.g., Butler 1990 ). This more open, agent-centered definition of family is apparent in recent ethical theory. Brake ( 2010 (2010, p.302) argues in favor of the concept of “minimal marriage,” which “sets… no principles regarding the number or gender of spouses, the nature or purpose of their caring relationship, or the exchange of marital rights, whether they are reciprocal or asymmetrical.” This view is in line with the “families of choice” approach. It allows people to assign the rights and responsibilities commonly associated with Western marriages as they see fit. Brake 2012, page 205 ). She says explicitly that this marriage formulation has the value that it “denormalizes monogamy in heterosexuals as a lifestyle” and that “it does not label some relationships as “legitimate “… (and] makes other options more salient”. Cutas and Chan ( 2012 also claim that there is a need to recognize the validity and diversity of sexual relationships for the family to be radically re-configured and depart from the ideal of a nuclear family (2012, p.7). They cite the sociological work by Budgeon and Roseneil ( 2004 In proposing this challenge, which challenges hetero-relationality, the authors question co-residence and romantic love as well as the primacy given to the couple. They are right to challenge the state and academics to abandon heterosexuality as a way of creating families. Their argument for alternative ways in which personal relationships can be organized is persuasive and gives us a desirable ideal. In a just society, we agree that legal frameworks envisioned by authors like Brake ( 2010 (and Chambers ( 2017 ( ) are persuasive: Individuals should be able to choose whether or not they want to enter into and leave personal relationships, and the elements of those relationships can also be separated. We believe these ideal questions are important for family ethicists, but we also recognize the ethical concerns that arise in family life. It is important to understand why the families of choice perspective are productive in changing thinking but limited in addressing contemporary issues. The concern is that this perspective, as printed by analytic theory, will make logilogically leader “family” redundant. Some sociologists would not find this change problematic and claim that a wider view of the family could lead to a new language and a greater focus on ‘personal life and personal relationships,’ e.g., Smart 2007; May 2012 ). We are more aligned with Edwards and Gillies ( 2012 () have argued that by reducing the word family, something important is lost, both for understanding and analyzing contemporary society and for a normative theory, which aims to address “social problems.” For the same reason, Brake and other philosophers do not give enough attention to the importance of and the persistence of dominant family practices. In the language of moral theories, many people believe they have a heavy duty to their families, which does not directly result from their choices. For this reason, even people who are legally free to do as they please may feel constrained by personal obligations and social expectations. For example, in many cases, adults with Emily ties feel responsible for taking the elderly and infirm. In liberal societies, there is no reason for this responsibility to be confined to families. However, in reality, it is. As Yeandle et al. As Yeandle et al. Yeandle et al. 2017, p. 5 ). The individual does not choose these, but it is often inherited through long-standing connections, such as marriage, blood, or family. In the philosophy literature, some have suggested that this principle of delayed reciprocity may explain that this child has a responsibility to care for their parents in recognition of the care they received when young. Keller 2006 ). We suggest, however, that this does not account for the duty that people feel towards elderly or infirm relatives or to those who need some emotional or practical assistance, even if they are not their parents, and there is no direct reciprocity. This kind of moral relationship remains a strong one for most people. Family structures are an important part of our lives and provide a sense of belonging, even if they are not present in our own lives. They also represent a source or value. The families of choice approach raise normative concerns since it ignores social structures and ongoing expectations. As Duncan and Edwards ( 1999 () explain, at least when it comes to decisions about families, paid employment, and care, individuals and groups are influenced by the political, social, and economic contexts in which they find themselves. People are motivated by the concept of family and believe they must do what is required of them. The choice framework does not include moral evaluation and misses an important element of the family’s operation in modern society. It is common to consider oneself a “good” father, niece, or sister. Van Hooff 2013 ). We are not here interested in the sociological questions of why people behave the way they act. However, we want to demonstrate the moral values that can be realized through engagement with how the family is understood and practiced in a specific social context.

Family Practices

The family practice framework developed by Morgan and Finch in the last few years provides a theory that can better explain the interconnected and complex role of structural and individual factors. Family practices, as developed by ( Morgan 1996, 2013 ), argue that identity is constructed through activity so that “family (is] to seen as less of the noun.” Morgan 1996, p. 186 (Represents a person rather than an object). Family scholars should therefore be less concerned with defining a “family” and instead focus on what a family does; Cheal 2007, p. ). Heaphy provides a useful definition of family practice. He writes: “Finch’s concepts… are grounded in interconnected sociological notions about ‘doing the family’ and family practices.’ They emphasize the social and relational processes through which families (re)produce: Family is defined less by “blood” or legal ties and more by culturally-defined family activities. The ‘Doing Family’ perspective explores families as social achievements or projects. They are interested in how families are lived and the role participants’ rolling them. Heaphy 2011, page 21 ). This definition has the virtue that it captures the agency, flexibility, and transformation that individuals in families experience over time. At the same time, it is grounded in reality, i.e., social institutions and conventions that influence our perception of families and the benefits they can offer. This approach differs from earlier definitions that defined family and then tried to categorize people as belonging or not. It starts by looking at the everyday lives of individuals. It solves the dilemma many face when trying todeterminingts a family, such as in blended families. It is better to think of family as an aspect of relationships rather than an institution. Our intervention does not aim to change the definition of a family but to get beyond the idea of in/out membership. As sociological research on how people define ‘their’ family shows, such attempts at defining family membership are bound to fail. Spencer and Pahl 2006. ). Consider whom you would include or exclude from your family. For example, would your sister’s boyfriend, your mother-in-law’s brother, your stepfather, or your half-sibling count? In some cases, they are considered family. However, in others, they are not. What is uThes that can be categorized as familial? This e is used to determine that examples may seem to exploit the fact that there are grey areas in families or that they do not have solid boundaries, but the idea of family practices is much more radical. A person’s father or mother can be excluded, and this is not dependent on their legal or biological connection. The family must be (i) enacted, (ii) displayed, (iii) and recognized. Family is not something that someone has. It is created and maintained through action. It does not necessarily mean the family can only be created through grand gestures. Rather, it is often sustained by everyday mundane activities such as making phone calls, sending greeting cards, or making tea. Finch, who emphasized ‘the fundamentally-social nature of family practices,’ said that the meaning of actions must be conveyed and understood by others in order for them to be considered ‘family practices.’ (2007, page 66). Morgan argues that family actions should be connected to a broader system of meaning, i.e., different cultural and social contexts that give particular significance to certain acts so that they can become familiar when the situation is right. There is some debate about who should be the audience for the display. Finch’s proposal stated that family only required recognition in the context of the relationship, although others may ‘observe’ it. Other authors (see Dermott and Seymour 2011) argue that when a child’s biological parents separate and live apart, the “practical necessities of the discharge of the custodial role” mean that providing care implies continuity with a functional understanding. He claims that in cases where the biological parents of children separate and live apart, the “practical necessity of the discharge of the custodial roles” means that the provision of ongoing care implies continuity within a functional understanding family. Archard 2010, p. 11. ). Archard discusses the two scenarios, where either separated parents have a partner (thus the child is now judged to have two families) or both parents remain single (and therefore, the child has one family, which includes them and their parents). Consider the following example to illustrate the limitations of this viewpoint and the strengths in the framework of family practice. Adam and Betty have a baby, Callum. The two separated while Callum was a child. Callum shares equal time with both adults after their split. Callum’s Ellen, Betty’s closest friend. Adam La takes Callum’s career and enters a long-term romance with Frankie. One strange aspect of Archard’s story is that Betty’s family depends on Adam’s actions. Archard’s analysis shows that, immediately after the split, there is still one family. It is just a family where both adults do not cohabit. Archard realizes that a theory of family needs to accommodate the growing prevalence of LATs. Betty and Adam are no longer a family once Adam begins a new relationship with Frankie. There are now two families: one with Adam, Frankie, and Callum, and another where Betty is the sole parent of Callum. This change in Betty’s status is incongruous, given that there’s no reason to think Adam’s relationship with Betty will undermine or change their ongoing parenting relationship. Archard claims that because Frankie has an intimate relationship (with Adam), she is now part of the family. This includes Callum. Ellen is not part of a family because she is Betty’s friend. Imagine, however, that Frankie rarely sees Callum, and while she is committed to Adam, she does not feel she has any responsibility or rights in Callum’s upbringing. Ellen, the onOnr hand, is responEllen sible for Callum’s well-being and has a central role in his care. We have good reasons to believe that the way Frankie, Ellen, and their family members view their role as caregivers and belonging matters. This case shows that Archard’s definition of “family” is wrong. It also illustrates that any attempt to define family as a noun would be fraught with problems. The family practice framework has the virtue that it views the family as a set of expectations and actions. In the case above, to ask whether Frankie belongs to ‘the family’ would be to ask what role she has in their everyday lives and how Callum views her. To us, a more sensitive approach to the emotions and practices of all parties is needed when deciding on the distribution of care rights and responsibilities. The current sociological paradigm allows for a more tailored response based on normative principles. We do not say family practices are intrinsically valuable and should be replicated. Instead, we argue that decision-makers need to consider the importance of these practices to peoples’ perceptions of what family is. Several people can be involved in parenting a child, and it is understood that this involves both practical and emotional support and subjective feelings of responsibility and intimacy. It seems that Ellen, who is considered a family member by Archard, does not feel that she has a great deal of responsibility to the child and assesses her actions about whether she is meeting these responsibilities. Callum would also not expect Frankie, a family relative under Archard, to act as she did. Frankie may be parenting the child and have ongoing duties to the child, but she could also be engaging in a completely different set of parenting behaviors. For example, in real life, a father who is not a resident could have limited contact with his child. However, he would still be engaging in parenting practices (such as sending birthday messages, texting, or attending an annual event at school) based on a strong emotional bond and maintaining the relationship between parent and child. We do not want to limit what counts as a parenting or family practice. Instead, we want to emphasize that this approach is highly contextual and can be adapted to any situation.